It’s become fashionable for atheists to tell us atheism is not a philosophy or ideology or belief-system or worldview. Atheism doesn’t have a positive identity. It doesn’t stand for anything. It merely opposes one thing: atheism is disbelief in God or gods.
The motivation for this nugatory claim is to shift the burden of proof onto the Christian. The supposition is that if you express your position in purely negative terms, then you don’t have anything to prove.
Of course, that’s just a verbal trick, but for now I’ll pass on the logic of the strategy, and discuss some other ramifications of the claim.
Even though we’re told that atheism is not a philosophy or ideology, atheists certainly act as if atheism is a package deal. For instance, they wax indignant at OT ethics. They assail Christians because we don’t think mothers have the right to abort their babies. They assail Christians because we don’t think sodomites have a right to marry each other, adopt children, serve in the military, and so forth.
For a lean nonbelief, atheism seems to have an awfully long list of do’s and don’ts.
In addition, atheists claim that they are victims of an unwritten code which discriminates against atheists. That they are unjustly distrusted by the intolerant Christian majority.
But if atheism is just a simple nonbelief, then atheism is compatible with an enormously wide range of beliefs and behaviors. Atheism doesn’t logically preclude you from kidnapping college coeds and dissecting them alive, without anesthetic, in your basement, for the sheer fun of watching them writhe and scream and beg for mercy.
Atheism is fully compatible with making your living by cheating elderly widows out of their lifesavings.
Atheism is fully compatible with abducting street kids and selling them on the black market for their vital organs.
Atheism is logically consistent with anything short of theism.
There’s a sense in which a suicide bomber is more reliable than an atheist. At least you know where you stand with the suicide bomber. You know what to expect.
But with an atheist, that smiling cable guy you let into your home might as well be Dexter Morgan.
Fashionable is what fashionable is -- according to the tastes of the person and not subject to any objective measure.
ReplyDeleteSo it can rightly be said that someone might have no fashion sense and who can say otherwise?
So, I say the atheists claimly that atheism is not a philosophy have little sense of the fashion being worn by all of us who do wear a philosophy, a belief system.
Atheists included. The only question is; is their fashion sense tasteful? And there are objective standards to judge it by.
Being unwilling to look underneath apparent presuppositions like logic and reason demonstrates a lack of depth that seems to characterize even the most intellectual of atheists.
ReplyDeleteIt's called "vivisection". If you're going to engage in libel, at least learn the proper terminology.
ReplyDeleteThe Nerd said:
ReplyDeleteIt's called "vivisection". If you're going to engage in libel, at least learn the proper terminology.
1. If you're going to accuse others of libel, then at least back it up with what you're specifically referring to as well as an argument for why you think it's libelous. Otherwise you're just drive-by commenting.
2. "Vivisection" is itself a loaded term.
3. Since you don't specify what you find libelous in the post, we can only make assumptions. I'll assume for the time being you're talking about this bit from the post: "Atheism doesn’t logically preclude you from kidnapping college coeds and dissecting them alive, without anesthetic, in your basement, for the sheer fun of watching them writhe and scream and beg for mercy."
If so, how is this an example of "vivisection"?
More importantly, if so, how is it libelous? How is it a false statement on atheism? How does atheism objectively ground or justify morality or ethics?
Ummmm... I hate to tell you but thinking women should be able to have an abortion, and being pro equal rights for homosexuals aren't part of being an atheist. I am, and know several atheist who don't believe abortions are morally right. I don't know any atheists who have anything against homosexuals personally, but they could exist. The primary argument used against gay marriage is based solely on religious texts, so obviously a group of people who don't follow any religious texts wouldn't see a reason to oppose something non-harmful to anyone other than perhaps making them feel a bit uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteYour other argument is just a crazy straw man and a great example of demagoguery. You are using the word "compatible" as though atheism encourages these extreme crimes, however the only way the statement is true is if compatible is used as a way of saying they aren't mutually exclusive, which is true. But that's because the two things are completely unrelated. Because the simple truth is that Atheism isn't a philosophy. If someone says they are a humanist, then they are discussing philosophy. If someone says they are existentialist, then they are talking about philosophy. But to say that being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you are opposed to killing people therefore any atheist could be a potential serial killer is not only misleading, but erroneous because there have been serial killers of every religion (can't think of a Buddhist serial killer, but I suppose it's possible).
The simple truth is this, atheist are people. They can be good people; they can be bad people, just as there can be good Christians and bad Christians. Like every other person on the planet they are all unique in their own ways. The ONLY thing that unites them all philosophically is a lack of a belief in a god figure.
Your argument of atheism says nothing against murder means that any atheist could logically be a murderer is about as relivant as saying a person likeing pizza doesn't mean they are against murder thereforet anyone who likes pizza could be a murderer.
ReplyDeleteTHE NERD SAID:
ReplyDelete"It's called 'vivisection'. If you're going to engage in libel, at least learn the proper terminology."
i) I didn't use incorrect terminology. Rather, I drew a word-picture.
ii) Moreover, if you Google the "proper terminology" with Triablogue, you'll see that I have used the "proper term" in the past.
ea6ce90a-be91-11e0-9419-000bcdcb2996 said...
ReplyDelete"Ummmm... I hate to tell you but thinking women should be able to have an abortion, and being pro equal rights for homosexuals aren't part of being an atheist."
Try telling that to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, John Loftus, Hector Avalos and a long list of militant atheists.
ea6ce90a-be91-11e0-9419-000bcdcb2996 said...
ReplyDelete"Your other argument is just a crazy straw man and a great example of demagoguery. You are using the word 'compatible' as though atheism encourages these extreme crimes..."
No, that's not how I used it.
To say that being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you are opposed to killing people therefore any atheist could be a potential serial killer is not only misleading..."
If theism is merely nonbelief in God or gods, then there's nothing in atheism that inhibits the atheist from being a serial killer.
That's not misleading, that's logical. And that's why atheists qua atheists can't be trusted.
"Your argument of atheism says nothing against murder means that any atheist could logically be a murderer is about as relivant as saying a person likeing pizza doesn't mean they are against murder thereforet anyone who likes pizza could be a murderer."
If a person defines himself by pizza, then, yes, the delivery boy could be a serial killer.
Did you miss the whole point of the statement? You are using specific atheist to speak for a communtiy of people with a wide range of view points. That would be like me taking public figures like Billy Graham and saying they speak for Christians as a whole.
ReplyDeleteLogical, but completely irrelivant. Just because something doesn't inhibit something doesn't mean it supports it either.
Again, atheism isn't a religion, it isn't a philosophy, it's saying I don't believe in this one specific thing. Just because you get all of your moral answers from religious texts doesn't mean we can't get many of the same answers using other means. You seem to be refering to the atheist and humanist as one in the same which is where you get the idea that all atheist are "pro-life" and pro gay marriage. Except that is where you have your logical flaw. All humanist are atheist, and all humanist believe that gays should have equal rights, and most (but not all belive in pro-choice). However not all Atheist are humanist. therefore not all atheist follow the humanist way of life.
How does Atheism objectively ground moral decisions? It doesn't. But philosphies that aren't based off of religious texts can and do.
Reading my last post the second part seemed out of place, it was referring to your "That's not misleading, that's logical. And that's why atheists qua atheists can't be trusted." statement.
ReplyDeleteYes the statement is logically sound, but it's also a red herring. You don't define people by what they don't believe in, you define them by what they do believe in. People who think its okay to kill people can't be trusted, theist or atheist. People who think that lying is okay can't be trusted, theist or atheist. Its prejudice at its basest level to ask someone one question and assume a bunch of other things completely unrelated to that by that one answer. If you don’t honestly don’t understand where they get their moral code, ask. You might just be surprised at the answers you get.
Reading my last post the second part seemed out of place, it was referring to your "That's not misleading, that's logical. And that's why atheists qua atheists can't be trusted." statement.
ReplyDeleteYes the statement is logically sound, but it's also a red herring. You don't define people by what they don't believe in, you define them by what they do believe in. People who think its okay to kill people can't be trusted, theist or atheist. People who think that lying is okay can't be trusted, theist or atheist. Its prejudice at its basest level to ask someone one question and assume a bunch of other things completely unrelated to that by that one answer. If you don’t honestly don’t understand where they get their moral code, ask. You might just be surprised at the answers you get.
EA6CE90A-BE91-11E0-9419-000BCDCB2996 SAID:
ReplyDeleteHow does Atheism objectively ground moral decisions? It doesn't.
Since, by your own admission, atheism doesn't objective ground moral decisions, then you've just shot yourself in the foot. Or rather in the head. We can now dismiss everything you've said about what should be right or wrong simply by appealing to your own words here.
But philosphies that aren't based off of religious texts can and do.
This is an assertion desperately seeking an argument. Thanks for playing. Care to try again or should we move onto the next contestant?
If you don’t honestly don’t understand where they get their moral code, ask. You might just be surprised at the answers you get.
ReplyDeleteSo where do you, as an atheist, get your moral code?
EA6CE90A-BE91-11E0-9419-000BCDCB2996 SAID:
ReplyDelete“Did you miss the whole point of the statement? You are using specific atheist to speak for a communtiy of people with a wide range of view points.”
I didn’t use a specific atheist in this post. Try to acquire some rudimentary reading skills.
Rather, I began with a general claim which you yourself grant: atheism is not a philosophy, ideology, belief-system, &c.
“Again, atheism isn't a religion, it isn't a philosophy, it's saying I don't believe in this one specific thing.”
Let’s see…I do a post entitled “atheism is not a philosophy.” I make that claim an explicit presupposition of my argument.
You then attempt to refute my argument by claiming that “atheism is not a philosophy.”
Granting the presupposition of my argument is a rather counterproductive way of refuting my argument. Thanks for the confirmation.
“You seem to be refering to the atheist and humanist as one in the same which is where you get the idea that all atheist are "pro-life" and pro gay marriage.”
One of your many confusions is to bundle together two separate issues which I addressed separately in my post.
On the one hand, atheists typically attack Christian ethics. That’s inconsistent with the “atheism is not a philosophy” line.
On the other hand, I make the additional point that if atheists are consistent with their purely negative identity, then that’s compatible with any behavior which isn’t motivated by theism. Hence, an atheist can’t be trusted.
“How does Atheism objectively ground moral decisions? It doesn't. But philosphies that aren't based off of religious texts can and do.”
Many atheists candidly deny moral realism.
“You don't define people by what they don't believe in, you define them by what they do believe in.”
I’m not defining the atheist. I’m letting the atheist to define himself. And he defines himself in negative terms. A disbelief in God or gods.
“People who think its okay to kill people can't be trusted, theist or atheist.”
Christians don’t define themselves in negative terms. For instance, Christian ethics is a defining feature of Christian identity.
Therefore, your comparison is disanalogous. Atheism is compatible with murder–Christian theism is not.
“Its prejudice at its basest level to ask someone one question and assume a bunch of other things completely unrelated to that by that one answer.”
To the contrary, it’s directly related to how atheists choose to define themselves. Them’s the breaks.
“If you don’t honestly don’t understand where they get their moral code, ask. You might just be surprised at the answers you get.”
Having read a lot of infidels, nothing would surprise me.
I get my moral code from basic principles of right and wrong, essentially the golden rule. Before doing something I ask if I would it harm me, or upset me if someone else did what I was about to do. If the answer is no, then it is wrong to take that action. I agree with a lot of the moral lesson in the Bible, and I won't try to discredit the fact that there are good lessons to be had in it. However, I can't bring myself to believe a in a god, and I can't accept everything taught in the bible as the absolute truth. I’m anti-abortion (with the only exception being when the mother’s life is put in serious jeopardy) because I see it as the ending of another’s life prematurely for no reason outside of personal convenience. However I am pro gay marriage (though I personally believe that marriage should not be sanctioned by the government, and that the government should instead honor civil unions to give the same legal rights for everyone willing to enter the contract married or no) because what to consenting adults do with each other are up to them and in no way affects the lives of those around them outside of a possible uncomfortable feeling because they think it’s “gross” and the conflict that sometimes occurs from the sometimes violent or hurtful reactions of those same people. That being said, the church itself does have the right to refuse to marry a couple if that couples very existence is an affront to their views; hence the civil union contract compromise.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to learn more about this you can look it up, I am essentially a secular humanist in my philosophy. Wikipedia actually gives a pretty good outline of what it’s all about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism.
And no I didn't shoot myself in the foot when I said atheism doesn't help you establish a objective moral code. I am stating that atheism is in no way related to morality. A person's individual philosophy is, but atheism isn't a philosophy, nor is it a religion that teaches any moral code; it is just the denial of another groups view on one very specific point.
On what basis do you deny this point of view? A rational basis? Or something else?
ReplyDeleteIf a rational basis; how then do you account for the knowledge you have acquired?
I, in good company with theist and anti-theist philosophers, will reply you cannot say you deny things on a rational basis that denies the possibility of God. Because to do so then says you deny abstract principles. So you must then be a very hard core and very anti-emergent materialist/naturalist (to whtever degree you combine the two) in your philosophy.
All of us are philosophers and have a philosophy. Some of us can articulate it well, some of us cannot.
Atheism is both a philosophy and a religion and it is an indication of the poverty of thought either engaged in willingly or unwillingly, that proponents of atheism still trumpet this.
ReplyDeleteEA6CE90A-BE91-11E0-9419-000BCDCB2996 SAID:
ReplyDelete"I get my moral code from basic principles of right and wrong, essentially the golden rule. Before doing something I ask if I would it harm me, or upset me if someone else did what I was about to do."
And what do you think grounds the golden rule? Why is harming someone wrong?
Atheism doesn’t logically preclude you from kidnapping college coeds and dissecting them alive, without anesthetic, in your basement, for the sheer fun of watching them writhe and scream and beg for mercy.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that the only reason you (or the religious generally) don't do something like this is because of your religion?
Desire, or lack thereof, is another reason I will do something, or refrain from doing it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, religious morality is a check in immoral desires.
Absent religious morality, there are no moral or immoral desires.
I suppose I'd argue that morality and ethics evolved in humans because we're social animals and rules are necessary to live in a society. Our pre and early human ancestors who followed their society's moral rules were more successful than those who didn't. Society/other humans is/are the source of morality.
ReplyDeleteThe various religions are just codifications of these moral rules. There is nothing wrong with that, but as society changes religion may struggle to adapt. For example people believed that slavery or the death penalty were morally acceptable and their religions supported those views. Today very few Christians would fail to condemn slavery and the largest Christian denomination opposes the death penalty. Today some Christians believe being gay (or committing gay acts) is sinful. Many don't and eventually they may be the majority. Morality isn't an absolute but neither is religion, they both evolve. I should note that some of the strongest opponents of slavery in the past and the death penalty today were/are Christians but there were and are equally devout Christians on the other side.
In terms of atheism being a philosophy or not. For me atheism means I don't believe in the gods.
I also reject other supernatural beliefs such as an afterlife or the existence of angels, demons, banshees, etc. that isn't because of my atheism, although it comes from the same place. I suppose it comes down to the old Carl Sagan line "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The thing is I think maybe you agree with me. We both reject Islam or Mormonism after all.
I think you believe that without religion people would lose their moral centre and society would dissolve. The problem is some of the happiest societies with the lowest crime rates and highest levels of social cohesion are societies where most or a lot of people are atheists or agnostics. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world/240103/
I don't reject Mormonism or Islam based on Sagan's vacuous adage.
ReplyDeleteYou're going to ignore everything else I said?
ReplyDeleteopenid said...
ReplyDelete"I think you believe that without religion people would lose their moral centre and society would dissolve."
That depends on how consistent people are. People have a great capacity to compartmentalize their beliefs.
"The problem is some of the happiest societies with the lowest crime rates and highest levels of social cohesion are societies where most or a lot of people are atheists or agnostics."
i) Among other things, that overlooks other variables. Some places are nicer to live than others.
ii) Europe may soon implode economically.
When claims are made, they need information to back them up, yet I see a regurgitation of plenty of misinformation and lies. So lets start with the obvious one:
ReplyDeleteWhere I get my morality is simple: From the knowledge of how small we are.
In the Bible, everything is about us, never mind the fact there are many issues within the Bible itself (the numerous translation issues, like with the very Name of Jesus being an example; the condoning of many things that are of questionable morality like slavery, warfare against those not favored by God, and murder of those who do not follow an instruction like "Don't work on a certain day".).
Where Atheism (or at least where I do) comes from this simple knowledge: we are small compared to the universe, and all we have is one another and the universe.
The Universe is massive, in just our galaxy alone, we have 500 Billion stars. 500 Billion. Thats just under 100 times as many people as there are right now. The Nearest big galaxy, the Andromeda, has over 1 Trillion. Thats 1,000,000,000,000. So once the scale is established, we move down to our level With all that, we are small, but made up of the same things the stars are. From there, we are small and somewhat insignificant, but in our smallness we are indeed touched with the cosmos. We are made up, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, "star stuff". As is everyone on the planet. In our smallness, we are tied to everyone. To do harm to others is a betrayal of this fact. The connection demands compassion. And it from here that I make my stand on ethics. Most atheists would balk at the examples you give as to what we would be "okay with" because we do indeed have morality. Just because there is no Hell doesn't mean we cannot act in a moral way.
To get a better idea of what I mean, watch this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk
serenity2132 said...
ReplyDelete"...the condoning of many things that are of questionable morality like slavery, warfare against those not favored by God, and murder of those who do not follow an instruction like 'Don't work on a certain day'.)."
To say that's morally questionable begs the very question at issue. You're jumping to your conclusion before you even established your premise. Go back to the end of the line and start over.
"We are made up, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, 'star stuff'."
So are scorpions. Do they have human rights?
" In our smallness, we are tied to everyone. To do harm to others is a betrayal of this fact. The connection demands compassion. And it from here that I make my stand on ethics."
If I'm small and vulnerable, then other people can also pose a threat to me. Why shouldn't I put my self-interest ahead of someone else?
"Just because there is no Hell doesn't mean we cannot act in a moral way."
You commit the same fallacy that so many other unthinking atheists do. The question at issue is not whether you can act morally, but whether you have any moral warrant to act morally.
The question at issue is not whether you can act morally, but whether you have any moral warrant to act morally.
ReplyDeleteOur morality evolved with us as our species evolved. I don't see why you think it needs an external supernatural origin any more than any of our other evolved traits. There are a number of online and offline sources for more info on the evolution of morality.
If you believe that morality comes from one or more gods then where did they get it? Is it just arbitrary? Is murder only wrong because the gods say it is?
On the other points you made in reply to me.
You're correct that people have a great capacity to compartmentalise their beliefs. People live their lives as if the universe operated on purely physical laws while still claiming to believe in various supernatural powers for example. I don't accept that if atheists were consistent (as you put it) then society would collapse. People would take care of people because it's in our nature to do so.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't a lot of other variables. What I'm saying is that religion isn't necessary for a happy and ethical society. The tribalism sometimes associated with religion might even make one more difficult.
Europe's current economic woes are mainly the result of a lack of controls on the financial services industry so I'm not sure how it relates to this debate. I don't want to get us sidetracked. I'm not an expert on anything but I especially not an expert on economics :-)
"Steve" said:
ReplyDelete"To say that's morally questionable begs the very question at issue. You're jumping to your conclusion before you even established your premise. Go back to the end of the line and start over."
Have this author and you done the same by claiming these things yourself? to say nothing of that last bit being extremely condescending.
"So are scorpions. Do they have human rights?"
Are scorpions sentient and sapient? Do they understand that they are made of spacestuff?
"If I'm small and vulnerable, then other people can also pose a threat to me. Why shouldn't I put my self-interest ahead of someone else?"
So because you're small and vulnerable, you can do whatever the hell you want? Apparently you missed the part about compassion. Caution is required, but compassion is a must as well.
"You commit the same fallacy that so many other unthinking atheists do. The question at issue is not whether you can act morally, but whether you have any moral warrant to act morally."
The same goes for you and your unthinking Christianity. Does the Norway shooter get off because of his moral objections coincide with the Bible? Was the US justified in its control of the Phillipines in the early 1900s, where many things now considered war crimes happened while we were trying to "Uplift and Christianize them"? And please clarify what you mean by a "moral warrant" because that seems less like a reasoned argument and more like a weasel word to ensure a nontheist can claim it.
OPENID SAID:
ReplyDelete"Our morality evolved with us as our species evolved. I don't see why you think it needs an external supernatural origin any more than any of our other evolved traits. There are a number of online and offline sources for more info on the evolution of morality."
Which conduces to moral nihilism:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/ruse.htm
"If you believe that morality comes from one or more gods then where did they get it? Is it just arbitrary? Is murder only wrong because the gods say it is?"
You're rehashing stale objections that I and others have often dealt with.
The golden rule can be grounded on the idea that I’m no more or less important than any other person, and that my happiness doesn’t take precedent over anyone else’s. You don’t really need much more than a sense of empathy, foresight, and a willingness to place the needs of the many over the needs of yourself in order to form a fairly solid moral framework. Why is it so hard to believe we can get morality from somewhere other than the bible? There are a lot of commands that no sane person would consider moral in the bible.
ReplyDelete"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." Leviticus 20:9
"The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'" Exodus 31:12-15
"Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants." Isaiah 14:21
You get the point. All of this and a whole lot more can be found in the bible. Yet, all but the most fundamentalist of modern Christians would never consider killing their kid for talking back, or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker. It's not an infallible book, nor is it a perfect guide to morality. Once again this isn't to say there aren't good lessons in the bible, because there are. But, if the bible didn't say it's not okay to kill your kids for talking back, then where did all these Christians get the idea that it's morally wrong to do so? And if the bible starts contradicting itself as it often does, then how do they know which action the bible tells them to do is the right one? The answer? The same place humanists get it from; logical reasoning that questions and analyzes what we are told.
And before you start ranting that it comes from the Old Testament so it doesn't count, I'll ask two questions. If the Old Testament doesn't count anymore then why teach it or keep it in the bible at all? And if the Old Testament doesn't count why would Jesus defend it, "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17-19
also going way back to "If a person defines himself by pizza, then, yes, the delivery boy could be a serial killer." I could just come back and say "If a person defines himself as a Christian, they, yes, that person could be a serial killer". And there are plenty of examples of such. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), Bruce Lee (not THE Bruce Lee), and Sampson Kanderayi to name a few. So I'll say it again, belief or lack of a belief in a god has no baring on if a person is moral or not. There are Christians who perform horrible attrocities and there are atheist who give their lives to help others.
ReplyDeleteOpenID said:
ReplyDeleteI suppose I'd argue that morality and ethics evolved in humans because we're social animals and rules are necessary to live in a society. Our pre and early human ancestors who followed their society's moral rules were more successful than those who didn't. Society/other humans is/are the source of morality.
If so, then what if human beings had evolved differently? Or what's to prevent future human beings - let us call this species homo futurus - from evolving to think raping women is morally licit? If that's possible, then you'd have to concede it's possible for rape to be morally licit in the future among homo futurus.
The problem is some of the happiest societies with the lowest crime rates and highest levels of social cohesion are societies where most or a lot of people are atheists or agnostics. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/the-happiest-countries-in-the-world/240103
Who's to say what's happy?
Why are "educational attainment" and "employees working long hours" factors in determining happiness? What if some people would be happier having no or little "educational attainment"? Or what if some people are happier working long hours? Also, how does one account for living a long but sad life in contrast to a short but happy one in these statistics?
Plus, these secular societies might be happy for many atheists or agnostics given their secular values. It's a bit like asking a fish if it's happy living in the water as opposed to the land. If the fish could talk, it'd doubtless say yes it prefers the water because it's a fish! But would say most traditional Muslims be happy to live in these secular societies? I've noticed many are repulsed by secular sexual immoralities and tolerance.
Serenity2132 said:
Are scorpions sentient and sapient? Do they understand that they are made of spacestuff?
Most atheists would argue the human brain and the mind are identical. If so, then the mind and consciousness are reducible to the brain. Hence human "sentience and sapience" are quite arguably illusions. There's no such thing as a "freethinker." See militant atheist Daniel Dennett's arguments for example.
EA6CE90A-BE91-11E0-9419-000BCDCB2996 said:
ReplyDeleteThe golden rule can be grounded on the idea that I’m no more or less important than any other person, and that my happiness doesn’t take precedent over anyone else’s.
If you're no more or less important than any other person, and if your happiness doesn't take precedence over anyone else's, then Steve was perfectly right when he said: "Atheism doesn’t logically preclude you from kidnapping college coeds and dissecting them alive, without anesthetic, in your basement, for the sheer fun of watching them writhe and scream and beg for mercy." After all, Jeffrey Dahmer's happiness is no more or less important than yours. He was happy raping, dismembering, and eating his victims. So why shouldn't his idea of happiness get a say in society too? True, he may be in the minority, but surely you'd protect a minority's rights since no one person's happiness takes precedence over another's! Of course, I don't espouse any of this. But it does show how ridiculous it is for you to attempt to ground the golden rule in an egalitarian human happiness of some sort.
There are a lot of commands that no sane person would consider moral in the bible...
Not only have we dealt with these objections in the past (e.g. see here), but so have many other Christians. For example, check out Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? for starters.
So I'll say it again, belief or lack of a belief in a god has no baring on if a person is moral or not. There are Christians who perform horrible attrocities and there are atheist who give their lives to help others.
1. You sound like a broken record. You just keep repeating yourself despite the fact that Steve has already responded to your points. Re-read what he's written in his post as well as comments above.
2. Once again, the point isn't whether atheists or theists can or cannot live moral lives. Everyone grants atheists can behave morally while theists can behave immorally.
The question is what objectively grounds morality for the atheist?
So far the best you've done is to say morality is grounded in the golden rule which in turn is grounded in an egalitarian human happiness of some sort. But human happiness is hardly an objective ground for morality. Rather it's quite subjective.
3. Besides, if you can't objectively ground your own atheistic morality, then it's illogical and unreasonable for you to lambast biblical morality. If you don't have an objective standard for what's right or wrong, then you can't say what's ultimately right or wrong. You can't judge others like you've been doing here. You can't judge us and tell us what we believe or do is wrong. You have no objective ground to stand on when you pass judgment on others including us.
4. Perhaps you should ponder this quote from Jeffrey Dahmer since it seems he understood the ramifications of atheistic morality better than you do: "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing..."
EA6CE90A-BE91-11E0-9419-000BCDCB2996 said:
ReplyDeleteI get my moral code from basic principles of right and wrong, essentially the golden rule. Before doing something I ask if I would it harm me, or upset me if someone else did what I was about to do...The golden rule can be grounded on the idea that I’m no more or less important than any other person, and that my happiness doesn’t take precedent over anyone else’s.
Let's say someone commits a crime where the sentence is life imprisonment with no chance of parole. Say it's a notorious drug dealer who's overseen violent and other crimes. But say he has a change of heart upon hearing his sentence or spending a few years in prison. Say he's entirely reformed.
The golden rule says we should treat others as we'd like to be treated. Or I take it you'd say "Before doing something I ask if [it] would harm me, or upset me if someone else did what I was about to do." In this case the answer is, yes, it would harm and upset this person if he's imprisoned for life without parole. Especially after he's reformed.
There are many people who would want him to be forgiven for the crime. Many people would want him to be given parole and some may even want him freed from prison. According to them the golden rule would be to forgive him, allow him a parole hearing, and/or free him from life imprisonment since they, too, would want to be given a second chance. So would it be right to give him a second chance?
Now let's also say the family members of the victims as well as some of the victims themselves (who are still alive) who were affected by his many crimes did not want any of this. They want him to remain in prison for life. In fact, let's say they argue along the same lines saying, if they had committed the crimes he had committed, then they'd want to be imprisoned for life. They think that's what's fair and how they'd want to be treated. Thus they too believe they're following the golden rule.
So which group of people is right given your atheism and golden rule ethics?
Patrick said: "If so, then what if human beings had evolved differently? Or what's to prevent future human beings - let us call this species homo futurus - from evolving to think raping women is morally licit? If that's possible, then you'd have to concede it's possible for rape to be morally licit in the future among homo futurus."
ReplyDeletePrecisely.
And why can't our free-thinking friends accept the possibility that the species is evolving in that direction and disabuse themselves of notions that early-adopters of this blind programmatic adaptation are in some way "immoral" just because they themselves aren't yet sufficiently evolved to appreciate the survival benefits of forced rape?
Also doesn't murder eliminate the weaker in favor of the stronger? Isn't murder simply a form of natural selection at work?
Cleansing the gene pool.
Clearing out the dead wood.
How arrogant and self-centered of anti-theists to oppose the advancement of the species!
In Christ,
CD
SERENITY2132 SAID:
ReplyDelete“Are scorpions sentient and sapient? Do they understand that they are made of spacestuff?”
So how we ought to treat others isn’t based on what they are made of, but whether or not we understand what they are made of.
“So because you're small and vulnerable, you can do whatever the hell you want?”
Based on what you’ve said thus far, yes, we can do whatever the hell we want.
“Apparently you missed the part about compassion. Caution is required, but compassion is a must as well.”
Compassion doesn’t follow logically from “we are made of star stuff.” Go back to the end of the line and try again.
“The same goes for you and your unthinking Christianity. Does the Norway shooter get off because of his moral objections coincide with the Bible?”
Document your clam.
“Was the US justified in its control of the Phillipines in the early 1900s, where many things now considered war crimes happened while we were trying to ‘Uplift and Christianize them’?”
The US gov’t is not a Christian. It’s just a bunch of people, with diverse views and motives.
“And please clarify what you mean by a ‘moral warrant’ because that seems less like a reasoned argument and more like a weasel word to ensure a nontheist can claim it.”
You confuse “acting morally” with begin able to justify morality. That’s not a “weasel word.” That’s elementary philosophy.
ea6ce90a-be91-11e0-9419-000bcdcb2996 said...
ReplyDelete"The golden rule can be grounded on the idea that I’m no more or less important than any other person, and that my happiness doesn’t take precedent over anyone else’s."
Begging the question.
"You don’t really need much more than a sense of empathy, foresight, and a willingness to place the needs of the many over the needs of yourself in order to form a fairly solid moral framework."
So it's okay to kidnap people and harvest their organs for the good of the many. Is that what you had in mind?
"There are a lot of commands that no sane person would consider moral in the bible."
i) Which begs the question.
ii) You haven't bothered to exegete your prooftexts, or consider their rationale in light of socioeconomic conditions in the ANE.
ea6ce90a-be91-11e0-9419-000bcdcb2996 said...
ReplyDelete"I could just come back and say 'If a person defines himself as a Christian, they, yes, that person could be a serial killer". And there are plenty of examples of such. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), Bruce Lee (not THE Bruce Lee), and Sampson Kanderayi to name a few.'"
They aren't defining themselves by Christian ethics. Rather, they are acting at odds with Christian ethics.